[EAI Opinion Review] The Policy Preference Landscape of South Korea's Political and Social Agenda: Public Opinion and Political Elite Choices

Converging Public Opinion, Political Elites Entangled in Dichotomous Confrontation

1. Introduction

As the 2012 general elections and presidential race approach, interest is growing across South Korean society regarding the next government's agenda and the prioritization of each agenda item. While referred to by some as the 'spirit of the times' or by others as 'core agendas' or 'key issues,' these terms all converge on the contemplation of government agendas that will shape the future direction of South Korean society.

Discussions about the next election issues or the next government's agenda have already begun to intensify within each party and among major political figures, as evidenced by the 2010 leadership elections and the statements of key presidential hopefuls. While the 17th presidential election primarily focused on conservative-friendly agendas such as 'revitalizing the economy' and 'economic growth,' as of the current juncture leading up to the 2012 presidential election, progressive-friendly agendas like 'welfare' and 'resolving economic polarization' are emerging. Park Geun-hye, former Grand National Party leader, who has conservative leanings, proposed 'warm conservatism, Korean-style welfare' in 2010. Following their defeat in the April 27 by-elections, the Grand National Party has shown a significant ideological shift to the left, exemplified by the realization of the 'half-price tuition' pledge. On the opposition side, led by Chairman Sohn Hak-kyu, who recently won the April 27 by-elections by emphasizing the role of the middle and centrist classes, there is an effort to develop agendas and policy shifts that transcend existing ideological boundaries, advocating for a transition to 'people-centered progressivism' that moves beyond old ideologies.

Meanwhile, as the election schedule draws nearer and intra-party competition for the next presidency intensifies, there is also a strengthening of positions that emphasize traditional agendas and policies in response to new changes. Latecomer contenders within the ruling party are tending to appeal to traditional conservative bases by raising traditional security and anti-populism agendas in response to former leader Park Geun-hye's leftward shift. Examples include Gyeonggi Governor Kim Moon-soo and former Representative Chung Mong-joon raising anti-communist security-related agendas, and Mayor Oh Se-hoon making the issue of opposing free school meals and half-price tuition. The opposition, which benefited from the free school meal pledge in the 2010 local elections, is going a step further by advocating for 'bold progressivism,' and there are not a few arguments that the next government's ruling strategy and philosophy should be based on 'universal welfare' rather than the existing centrist reform line. Thus, the political landscape surrounding South Korea's next government agenda and ruling philosophy is becoming increasingly complex.

As election seasons approach, concrete policy debates regarding South Korea's vision and future direction will intensify through competition between parties and candidates. It is desirable that policy competition strengthens, aiming to provide voters with diverse agendas and choices, and thereby gain political selection, rather than relying on pre-modern strategies based on regional or alumni ties, as in the past.

However, the question is how well these core agendas and policy alternatives proposed by parties and political elites reflect the demands and preferences of the sovereign citizens. In this context, it is particularly noteworthy that the ideological attitudes of South Korean voters and the macro-ideological mood of South Korean society are moving away from the existing simple ideological dichotomy (Jeong Han-wool, 2011). In other words, the dichotomous framework of 'conservative = pro-US = anti-North Korea = growth-first = support for the Grand National Party' versus 'progressive = anti-US = pro-North Korea = welfare-first = support for the Democratic Party' is significantly weakening. This change suggests that if political forces set agendas and develop policy alternatives solely based on the existing dichotomous ideological frame, they will struggle to gain support even from their own base, let alone majority support. Therefore, it is crucial to accurately read the changing demands of voters and their preferred policy preferences. Ultimately, the choices of the public will be determined by how well each party and political elite captures the changing demands of voters and presents corresponding government agendas and policy alternatives. If parties and political elites fail to recognize the changing ideological attitudes and political preferences of voters and remain trapped in dichotomous ideological confrontations, it will only lead to unproductive political conflict.

In this context, the EAI Governance Roundtable Research Team (Team Leader: Lee Sook-jong, President of EAI) investigated public opinion and the perceptions of political elites regarding key future government agendas and their core issues. Based on the premise that it is necessary to actively reflect the changing voices of the public from the stage of agenda setting and policy formulation by parties and political elites, this study aimed to analyze the landscape of political and social government agendas and policy preferences in South Korea. Specifically, it examined what government agendas the public desires, what policies they prefer, and whether parties and political elites are adequately reflecting these public opinions.

Through this endeavor, the research team aims to enhance sensitivity to changes in public will within party competition and, furthermore, to lay the foundation for a more productive policy competition in South Korea's politics and governance processes. To this end, in mid-January 2011, the team formed the 'Political and Social National Agenda in South Korea' group and, as its first research task, selected candidate items for key political and social government agendas. From these, core agendas in the political and social fields that have generated intense ideological conflict in South Korean society or are contentious among expert groups were selected, and key issues with clear points of contention within each field were identified. Subsequently, a survey was conducted using the same questionnaire on 1,000 general citizens (surveyed February 14-15) and 136 individuals from the representative political elite group in South Korea, comprising ruling and opposition party members of the National Assembly and their Grade 4 aides (surveyed March 2-9), to examine the commonalities and differences between public opinion and the preferences of current political elites.

2. Analytical Framework and Methodology

Focus of Analysis

The analytical focus for this study is as follows:

First, it analyzes where the policy preferences of voters regarding key government agendas and their main issues lie on a progressive-conservative ideological spectrum. By examining whether the preferences of the general electorate for each policy issue lean towards one ideological direction or appear neutral, the policy attitudes of the majority of voters on each issue can be identified.

Second, it assesses the degree of ideological division within the electorate for each policy issue. It will examine whether differences in policy preferences exist based on voters' ideological orientations and whether voters' ideological orientations (progressive and conservative groups) align with their policy preferences on specific issues.

Third, it investigates the extent of ideological division in policy preferences among political elites of major parties for each issue. It will analyze the differences in policy preferences between elites of conservative and progressive parties and examine whether their preferences align with the preferences of their respective support bases. To this end, differences in policy preferences between elites of conservative and progressive parties will be analyzed, and whether their preferences align with the preferences of their supporting ideological groups will be examined.

[Table 1] Eight Key Government Agendas and Major Contested Issues in the Political and Social Field for the Next Term

Questionnaire Design: Selection of 8 Political and Social Agendas and 34 Key Issues

The research team compiled government agendas proposed during past general and presidential elections, selected issues that have become ideological and political points of contention in South Korean society, and added long-term government tasks and issues expected to emerge in relation to South Korea's development direction through content analysis of various media. In particular, issues that, despite their importance, have resulted in unproductive political disputes or ideological debates during past elections or in everyday political processes were included as much as possible to compare with actual public preferences. Based on these criteria, the political and social agendas were organized into eight fields, and a total of 34 policy issues were derived by selecting 3-5 key contentious points for each field.

Measurement and Analysis Methods

To clarify the ideological tendencies in the preferences of voters and political elites for each agenda and key issue, the responses to each question were dichotomized into progressive and conservative stances. For consistency in analysis, progressive responses were coded as 1 and conservative responses as 2. 'Don't know' or 'no response' were treated as missing values and excluded from the analysis (refer to Appendix 3 for survey methodology for general citizens and political elites). The analysis proceeds as follows, based on the analytical focus presented earlier.

1) Analysis of Ideological Policy Preferences of General Voters

To determine whether general voters' preferences for individual issues within each agenda lean towards progressive or conservative policies, the average scores of individual respondents' answers are compared. This allows us to understand whether voters' attitudes towards a given issue favor progressive or conservative policies and, through the magnitude of the score, to concisely grasp the intensity of that preference. Since a progressive response is coded as 1 and a conservative response as 2, with 1.5 as the midpoint, issues closer to 1 indicate a generally progressive preference, while issues closer to 2 indicate a strong conservative public opinion.

2) Analysis of Policy Preference Landscape by Ideological Group

A portfolio map is created to provide a clear overview of the ideological divisions within the electorate regarding each policy issue. By plotting the average scores of conservative voters and progressive voters for each issue on a coordinate plane, a 'policy preference map' can be created, representing the policy preferences of progressive and conservative groups for each agenda.

By creating ordered pairs (x, y) where x is the average response of conservative voters and y is the average response of progressive voters for each issue, the ideological group's preference position for each issue can be represented on a two-dimensional coordinate plane. Here, response 1 signifies a progressive stance and response 2 a conservative stance. Dividing each axis by the midpoint of 1.5 results in a 2x2 policy preference map showing four policy preference landscapes.

In [Figure 1], Quadrant 1 (x > 1.5, y > 1.5) represents the area where both conservative and progressive groups prefer conservative policies. Quadrant 2 (x < 1.5, y > 1.5) is the area where ideological division appears, with conservative groups preferring progressive policies and progressive groups preferring progressive policies. Quadrant 3 (x < 1.5, y < 1.5) is the area where ideological convergence occurs, as both conservative and progressive groups prefer progressive policies. Quadrant 4 (x > 1.5, y < 1.5) is the area where progressive groups prefer progressive policies and conservative groups prefer conservative policies, representing traditional ideological conflict. In short, Quadrants 1 and 3 show ideological convergence, while Quadrants 2 and 4 highlight ideological division.

3) Analysis of Political Elite Policy Preference Landscape

In the same manner, the results of the political elite survey can be plotted on the aforementioned two-dimensional policy preference space by creating ordered pairs (x, y) where x is the average preference score of Grand National Party elites and y is the average preference score of Democratic Party elites for each issue. This facilitates an intuitive comparison between the general public's policy preference landscape and the political elites' policy preference landscape for each agenda. Specifically, if the quadrant where the ordered pairs of policy preferences for progressive and conservative voters lie within the electorate matches the quadrant where the ordered pairs of policy preferences for Grand National Party elites and Democratic Party elites lie, then the ideological division among political elites can be seen as reflecting the division at the voter level. Conversely, if there is a significant discrepancy between the two, the ideological division among political elites may be distorting the pattern of ideological division among voters.

[Figure 1] Analysis of Policy Preference Landscape by Issue

X-axis: Average preference score of conservative group (Grand National Party) for the issue, Y-axis: Average preference score of progressive group (Democratic Party) for the issue

3. Comparison of Public Opinion and Political Elite Preference Distribution by Agenda

[Agenda 1] Job Creation Measures and the Role of Government: Market Efficiency, Acceptance of Labor Flexibility

Overall Ideological Preference Mood: Convergence towards Conservative Policy Preferences

In [Figure 2], regarding the <Job Creation Measures and the Role of Government> agenda, the average policy preferences for most issues indicate a preference for conservative policies. For the question 'Should the government strengthen corporate regulations (1 point) or respect corporate autonomy (2 points)?', the average response was 1.73, indicating a strong public opinion favoring corporate autonomy. For the question 'Should jobs be created through increased government subsidies (1 point) or through support for corporate growth (2 points)?', the overall average was 1.70, with a strong public preference for job creation through corporate support.

Regarding employment measures, for the question 'Is it more important to expand youth employment/shorten the retirement age (1 point) or expand employment for the elderly/extend the retirement age (2 points)?', the average was 1.60, indicating a preference for expanding employment for the elderly and extending the retirement age over prioritizing youth employment and shortening the retirement age. Furthermore, on the issue of 'labor flexibility,' the biggest point of contention in the labor sector related to job creation, the average score was 1.59, indicating a slight preference for 'labor flexibility (2 points)' over 'strengthening labor rights (1 point).' In the case of the 'public enterprises' issue, one of the biggest points of contention regarding the government's role in the economy, the score was 1.55. While the degree of policy preference concentration was weaker compared to the aforementioned issues, the conservative stance of 'privatizing public enterprises' was relatively strong. Overall, on issues related to the government's role, the public showed greater trust in corporations and the private sector than in the government, and a pragmatic attitude was evident in labor policies.

[Figure 2] Public Policy Preference Distribution (%) for Issues Related to <Job Creation and the Role of Government>

Weakening of Voter Ideological Division, Convergence towards Conservative Policies

Traditional Ideological Conflict Pronounced Among Political Elites

As can be seen in [Figure 3], most of the policy preferences for issues related to <Job Creation and the Role of Government> are located in the first quadrant, where there is broad consensus on conservative policies with little ideological conflict among voters. In contrast, many issues are located in the fourth quadrant among political elites.

At the general public level, policy preferences diverged only regarding measures for public enterprise efficiency, with conservatives favoring it (1.59 points, exceeding 1.5) and progressives leaning towards it (1.47 points, below 1.5). For the remaining issues, both progressive and conservative groups showed convergence towards conservative policies, with average responses exceeding 1.5: emphasizing corporate autonomy (conservatives 1.76, progressives 1.72), corporate-led job creation (conservatives 1.77, progressives 1.66), and favoring employment for the elderly and extension of the retirement age (conservatives 1.61, progressives 1.61). On the issue of labor flexibility, conservative respondents strongly favored emphasizing labor flexibility (1.63), while even among progressives, the responses were evenly split (1.51) between prioritizing labor rights protection and emphasizing labor flexibility, leading to an overall leaning towards labor flexibility.

However, at the political elite level, issues such as job creation methods, corporate autonomy, and labor flexibility are located in the fourth quadrant, representing traditional ideological conflict. Grand National Party elites primarily emphasize corporate autonomy (1.85), government-led job creation (1.91), and labor flexibility (1.84). Conversely, Democratic Party elites prioritize government regulation of corporations (1.38), job creation through government support (1.45), and labor rights protection (1.33), indicating significant ideological divisions between the two parties. Regarding employment measures, Grand National Party elites tend to favor youth employment and shortening the retirement age (1.42 points), while Democratic Party elites are divided (1.51 points). While public opinion showed a traditional confrontation where progressives favored government regulation and conservatives favored privatization, at the elite level, the policy preference positions are located in the third quadrant, showing convergence towards strengthening government regulation of public enterprises rather than privatization, for both Grand National Party elites (1.47 < 1.5) and Democratic Party elites (1.15 < 1.5).

[Figure 3] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscape for <Job Creation and the Role of Government>: General Public vs. Political Elites (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

[Agenda 2] Alleviating Polarization and Welfare: Preference for Productive, Selective Welfare over Universal Welfare

Overall Ideological Preference Mood: Predominance of Selective, Productive Welfare Approach; Heated Debate on Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

Regarding the <Alleviating Polarization and Welfare> agenda, it is generally known as a progressive-friendly agenda, but it is important to note that the positions on individual policies vary by issue.

Notably, the public prefers a 'selective welfare/tax cut' approach (1.65) over the 'universal welfare/tax increase' debate, which is currently a major welfare issue between the ruling and opposition parties. Furthermore, regarding the social safety net for low-income individuals, there is a strong public preference for 'expanding education and training for employment' (1.69) over 'expanding social welfare benefits for low-income individuals.' While the opposition, following the free school meal debate in 2010, has shifted rapidly from the <Productive Welfare> of the Kim Dae-jung administration and the <Welfare based on Social Investment Theory> of the Roh Moo-hyun administration to advocating for <Universal Welfare>, this survey result suggests that this shift in welfare approach is actually diverging from public opinion.

However, in terms of welfare methodology, while public opinion strongly favors conservative policies (selective welfare/productive welfare), individual welfare issues present diverse patterns. First, regarding the 'tax cut for the wealthy,' represented by lowering property tax rates, the stance favoring increased taxation is as strong as the opposing stance (1.49). This appears to be a result of widespread distrust and backlash against vested interests amidst deepening social polarization.

Regarding childcare/nursery policies, the argument for expanding direct support for childcare and nursery services slightly outweighs the argument for strengthening support for multiple children to address the low birth rate issue in the long term (1.45). Meanwhile, concerning the imbalance in welfare benefits represented by the four major insurance programs, the public overwhelmingly prefers measures to improve the efficiency of welfare delivery systems and operations, and to prevent fraudulent claims, rather than increasing insurance premiums and reducing benefits (1.08).

[Figure 4] Public Policy Preference Distribution (%) for <Alleviating Polarization and Welfare> Issues

Predominant Ideological Convergence Among Voters, Ideological Division on Tax Cuts for the Wealthy

Significant Division Among Political Elites on Welfare Methodology (Universal vs. Selective Welfare, Direct Support vs. Enhanced Job Training)

As confirmed in [Figure 5], there are considerable differences between the policy preference landscapes of individual issues at the general voter level and those at the political elite level for the <Polarization and Welfare> agenda.

At the general public level, when the policy preference positions of progressive and conservative groups for each issue are plotted on a coordinate plane, they are predominantly located in the first and third quadrants, showing a strong tendency towards convergence. Specifically, regarding the contentious issue of universal welfare/tax increase versus selective welfare/tax cut, there was a convergence towards the conservative tendency of selective welfare/tax cut (conservatives 1.69, progressives 1.56). Similarly, for support measures for low-income individuals, there was a convergence towards conservative policies prioritizing enhanced vocational education and job training over direct support (conservatives 1.74, progressives 1.64). In contrast, on the issue of prioritizing childcare/nursery support versus encouraging multiple births, the stance favoring expanded childcare/nursery support was strong (conservatives 1.49, progressives 1.39). Regarding measures to secure welfare funding, there was convergence on prioritizing the efficiency of operations and welfare delivery systems over increasing insurance premiums and reducing expenditures (conservatives 1.06, progressives 1.08). However, on the issue of property tax rates (tax cuts for the wealthy), conservatives favored reductions (1.53) while progressives favored increases (1.42), confirming a significant ideological gap.

Conversely, at the political elite level, significant convergence is observed in policy preferences for issues such as tax increases for the wealthy (Grand National Party 1.35, Democratic Party 1.13), prioritizing childcare/nursery support (Grand National Party 1.11, Democratic Party 1.13), and efficiency in the operation and delivery of the four major insurance programs (Grand National Party 1.08, Democratic Party 1.08), with all these policy preference positions located in the third quadrant. However, policy preferences on the core contentious issues of welfare methodology are located in the fourth quadrant, an area of traditional ideological conflict, showing a pattern where ideological orientation and policy preference are opposed. Specifically, regarding methods of supporting low-income individuals, Grand National Party elites responded with 1.59 and Democratic Party elites with 1.35 for direct support versus enhanced job training. For universal welfare versus selective welfare, Grand National Party elites responded with 1.75 and Democratic Party elites with 1.15, revealing distinct differences in their positions. At the very least, the Democratic Party's policy preference position on welfare methodology deviates from that of the general public, and even from that of progressive voters, suggesting that expanding its support base within the current debate structure will be challenging.

[Figure 5] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscape for <Mitigating Polarization and Welfare>: General Public vs. Political Elite (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

[Agenda 3] Education and Human Resources Development: Maintain the Framework of Educational Equalization, but Reform is Needed

Overall Ideological Preference Mood: Maintain the Trend of Equalization, but Agree on University Autonomy in Student Admissions and Opening the Education Market

Regarding <Educational Issues>, a majority opinion favors maintaining the policy of high school equalization, while opinions are divided on expanding specialized high schools/science high schools. Firstly, on the issue of whether to maintain or abolish high school equalization, the average score of all respondents was 1.40, indicating a majority preference for maintaining it. However, on the issue of whether to limit or expand specialized high schools/science high schools, the score was 1.50, showing a close division.

However, regarding the issues of student admissions autonomy and the opening of the education market, there is a strong preference for conservative policies that grant universities autonomy in admissions and favor market opening. On the question of whether to maintain the current system or strengthen university autonomy in student admissions, the average score of all respondents was 1.68, indicating a strong preference for granting universities admissions autonomy. Furthermore, on the issue of opening the education market, the average score was 1.76, indicating a majority public opinion favoring market opening rather than restricting it. This result appears to reflect significant dissatisfaction and distrust with current government-influenced educational policies and the domestic education system.

Meanwhile, on the issue of student rights versus teacher authority, which has emerged as a major point of contention in the education field, public opinion largely favors strengthening teacher authority. The opinion favoring the prioritization of strengthening teacher authority received an overwhelming majority with a score of 1.77.

[Figure 6] Distribution of General Public Policy Preferences on <Education and Human Resources> Issues (%)

Contradictory Voter Attitudes: Convergence on Progressive Educational Ideology, but Conservative Convergence on Educational Policy

Elite Convergence on Progressive Educational Ideology, but Policy Conflict on Educational Policy

In the case of <Educational Issues>, there is a significant gap between the fissures in policy preferences observed among voters and those observed among political elites.

At the general public level, regarding issues related to educational ideology, such as equalization, a majority favors maintaining equalization. However, concerning various policies aimed at reforming the current education system, there is a noticeable convergence towards conservative positions. The paired scores for conservative and progressive respondents are predominantly located in the first and third quadrants, excluding the issue of specialized/science high schools. Firstly, on the matter of high school equalization, which is deeply rooted in educational philosophy, both progressive and conservative strata favored maintaining equalization to emphasize equal educational opportunities (Conservative: 1.47, Progressive: 1.35). Regarding specialized/science high school policies, there is a difference in stance, with progressives scoring 1.42 and conservatives 1.52. However, in terms of favoring the opening of the education market (Conservative: 1.78, Progressive: 1.76) and strengthening university admissions autonomy (Conservative: 1.70, Progressive: 1.64), there was no difference based on ideological orientation. Notably, on the conflict between student rights and teacher authority, which acts as a source of ideological conflict in practice, both progressive and conservative strata strongly advocate for prioritizing teacher authority (Conservative: 1.85, Progressive: 1.69).

Conversely, at the elite level, there is a noticeable convergence towards progressive stances on issues of equalization and specialized/science high schools by both ruling and opposition parties. On the issue of equalization, the Grand National Party scored 1.32 and the Democratic Party scored 1.08, indicating a strong preference for maintaining high school equalization, which aligns with general public opinion. Regarding specialized/science high schools, the Grand National Party elites scored 1.42 and the Democratic Party elites scored 1.18, showing a preference for limiting rather than expanding them. This suggests that the Grand National Party is more inclined to accept progressive solutions on the issue of specialized/science high schools than its conservative base.

However, significant ideological differences between ruling and opposition party elites were observed in policies related to educational reform. Firstly, on the issue of strengthening university admissions autonomy, Grand National Party elites strongly favored it with a score of 1.71, while Democratic Party elites opposed it with a score of 1.30. Regarding the opening of the education market, Grand National Party elites strongly favored it with a score of 1.86, while Democratic Party elites opposed it with a score of 1.34. On the issue of student rights versus teacher authority, unlike the general public's convergence towards strengthening teacher authority, Grand National Party elites prioritized strengthening teacher authority (1.81), while Democratic Party elites prioritized student rights (1.45).

[Figure 7] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscape for <Mitigating Polarization and Welfare>: General Public vs. Political Elite (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

[Agenda 4] Sustainable Development: Coexistence of Sustainability and Developmentalism

Overall Ideological Preference Mood: Coexistence of Environmental/Balanced Development Values and Developmentalism in Real Estate/Biotechnology Sectors

The survey results indicate a coexistence of conflicting values regarding the <Sustainable Development> issue: the logic of environmental protection/balanced development on one hand, and developmentalism for national competitiveness agendas such as real estate development/biotechnology on the other.

Looking at the policy preferences of the general electorate, on the question of whether environmental protection or industrial development should be prioritized, the score was 1.20, indicating a strong preference for prioritizing environmental protection. Furthermore, on the question of whether balanced development or deregulation for the development of the Seoul metropolitan area should be prioritized, the average score of all voters was 1.17, indicating a strong public opinion leaning towards emphasizing balanced development.

However, regarding real estate regulations, which are directly related to real estate development and housing issues, the average score for all respondents was 1.69, leaning towards deregulation and encouraging supply expansion, as opposed to strengthening regulations and suppressing demand. Meanwhile, on the issue of prioritizing bioethics or competitiveness in the biotechnology sector, which is attracting attention as a next-generation growth industry, the average score of all voters was 1.58, indicating a majority preference for emphasizing the logic of competition.

[Figure 8] Distribution of General Public Policy Preferences on <Sustainable Development> Issues (%)

Coexistence of Voter Sustainability Values and Conservative Logic of Development/Competitiveness

Elite Policy Conflict Surrounding Balanced Development and Real Estate Development Deregulation

As observed earlier, among the <Sustainable Development> related issues, the general public prefers environmental protection over industrial development and balanced development over metropolitan concentration. However, there is a coexistence of opinions on sustainability and development, prioritizing deregulation of real estate development and competitiveness in biotechnology. This pattern is observed in both progressive and conservative groups. Nevertheless, clear differences in policy preferences between ruling and opposition political elites are confirmed regarding development issues.

Firstly, at the voter level, on issues of balanced development versus metropolitan development and environmental protection versus industrial development, both progressive and conservative strata show convergence towards prioritizing balanced development (Conservative: 1.21, Progressive: 1.12) and environmental protection (Conservative: 1.26, Progressive: 1.12). However, conversely, on the issues of whether to strengthen or ease real estate regulations, and whether to prioritize ethics or competitiveness in the bio-industry, both progressives and conservatives answered that deregulation (Conservative: 1.72, Progressive: 1.68) and the logic of competition (Conservative: 1.59, Progressive: 1.59) should be prioritized.

However, at the political elite level, both ruling and opposition elites tend to align with the general public's policy preferences, showing a preference for the value of environmental protection (Grand National Party: 1.24, Democratic Party: 1.00) over industrial development, and the value of competitiveness (Grand National Party: 1.68, Democratic Party: 1.51) over ethics in the development of the bio-industry. On the other hand, distinct differences in stance are evident regarding real estate regulations and regional balanced development issues. Specifically, on the issue of real estate regulations, Grand National Party elites lean towards deregulation with a score of 1.77, while Democratic Party elites favor strengthening regulations with a score of 1.36. Regarding balanced development versus metropolitan development, Grand National Party elites overwhelmingly favored deregulation for metropolitan areas with a score of 1.91, whereas Democratic Party elites leaned towards balanced development with an average score of 1.45.

[Figure 9] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscape for <Sustainable Development>: General Public vs. Political Elite (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

[Agenda 5-6] Openness of Korean Society and Political Order

Overall Ideological Preference Mood: Predominance of Economic Protectionism and Multiculturalism, Prioritizing Public Order over Freedom

Regarding issues related to <Openness of Korean Society>, the average responses of the general electorate indicate the widespread prevalence of protectionism in economic dimensions and multiculturalism in social dimensions. On the issue of rice market opening, which exemplifies economic protectionism, the average response was 1.19, clearly indicating a preference for protecting rice farmers. Conversely, on the issue of accepting ethnic/racial diversity, which reflects social diversity and openness, the score was also 1.19, with a leaning towards accepting ethnic/racial diversity. However, on matters involving the economic interests of domestic workers, such as the issue of migrant workers, the central tendency shifted towards a protectionist view, with a score of 1.54, favoring restrictions on the number of migrant workers rather than expansion.

Meanwhile, on issues of <Harmony between Political Freedom and Public Order>, a general tendency to prioritize public order over the unrestricted guarantee of political freedom was observed. When asked whether it is more important to enforce the law strictly without exception or to enforce the law with consideration for the right to survival and public sentiment, the average voter response was 1.71, leaning towards strict law enforcement. Similarly, when asked whether it is more important to guarantee freedom of assembly and demonstration or to maintain public order, the average response was 1.66, indicating a preference for maintaining public order. However, a contrasting attitude is shown regarding government regulation for maintaining this order. On the question of whether the government should guarantee freedom of the internet or strengthen online regulation, the average score was 1.40, falling below the midpoint of 1.5, indicating a preference for guaranteeing internet freedom. This suggests a coexistence of prioritizing public order while harboring reservations about government regulation to achieve it.

[Figure 10] Distribution of General Public Policy Preferences on <Social Openness> and <Political Order> Issues (%)

Voter Level: Prefer Economic Protectionism and Social Openness on <Openness>, Emphasize Rule of Law in <Political Freedom>

Elite Level: Both Ruling and Opposition Parties Emphasize Openness and Freedom in <Openness> and <Political Freedom>

Regarding <Openness> issues, there is a clear tendency for both progressive and conservative voters to favor protectionism economically and to acknowledge multiculturalism socially, without significant ideological divergence. On the issue of rice market opening, conservatives scored 1.24 and progressives 1.12, prioritizing farmer protection. However, on the issue of ethnic/racial diversity, conservatives scored 1.20 and progressives 1.16, with a more open attitude respecting diversity over maintaining a single ethnic identity. Nevertheless, on the issue of expanding migrant workers, which involves economic logic, there is a slight divergence in stance, with conservatives scoring 1.56 and progressives 1.49.

Notably, on <Openness> issues, political elites showed a clear convergence in policy preferences, comparable to the general public, rather than ideological or political divisions. On the rice market opening issue, the Grand National Party scored 1.21 and the Democratic Party 1.08, prioritizing protectionism. On the issue of ethnic/racial diversity, both the Grand National Party (1.04) and the Democratic Party (1.05) showed high acceptance of multiculturalism. In particular, among political elites, there was convergence on the stance of expanding the number of migrant workers (Grand National Party: 1.46, Democratic Party: 1.37), indicating an active endorsement of social openness and multicultural phenomena.

On the agenda of <Harmony between Political Freedom and Public Order>, policy divisions vary depending on the specific issue. At the general public level, regarding the establishment of law and order, there was a consensus that strict law enforcement without exception is necessary, regardless of progressive or conservative ideological attitudes (Conservative: 1.74, Progressive: 1.65). Conversely, on the issue of government regulation of the internet, there was a convergence towards guaranteeing freedom (Conservative: 1.48, Progressive: 1.28). However, on the issue of freedom of assembly and demonstration versus public order, conservatives prioritized public order (1.77), while progressives prioritized freedom of assembly and demonstration (1.47), indicating potential for ideological conflict.

At the political elite level, policy preference differences between Grand National Party and Democratic Party elites were found only on issues related to the assembly and demonstration law; for other issues, there was a convergence towards progressive stances. Specifically, on the issue of whether to enforce the law strictly without exception or to enforce it with consideration for the right to survival and public sentiment, there is a consensus on considering the right to survival and public sentiment (Grand National Party: 1.47, Democratic Party: 1.20), unlike the general public. On internet regulation, the preference for freedom over regulation (Grand National Party: 1.29, Democratic Party: 1.10) aligns with the general public's policy preferences. However, when the value of freedom, such as freedom of assembly and demonstration, conflicts with the value of public order, Grand National Party elites prioritize public order (1.67), while Democratic Party elites prioritize political freedom (1.20), showing a clear pattern of division.

[Figure 11] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscape for <Social Openness> and <Political Order>: General Public vs. Political Elite (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

[Agenda 7] Governance and Administration: Expand Governance Participation, Approach Administrative Reform Cautiously

Overall Ideological Preference Mood: Expand Private Sector Governance and Adopt a Conservative Approach to Administrative Reform

Regarding the issue of <Governance and Administrative Reform>, as the perception of expanding private sector participation in the policy-making process has spread, there is a preference for cautious approaches rather than radical reforms. In terms of criteria for high-level appointments, public opinion strongly favors emphasizing morality over expertise.

As shown in [Figure 12], from the perspective of governance reform, regarding the question of whether to strengthen private sector policy participation or reinforce the centrality of government policy, the average policy preference score of the general public is 1.32, confirming a preference for expanding private sector participation. Regarding the administrative district reorganization issue, which has been debated within the current administration, public opinion leans towards maintaining the current administrative districts with a score of 1.44. For the criteria for appointing high-level officials (ministers), public opinion strongly emphasizes basic morality over expertise, with a score of 1.44. Meanwhile, regarding decentralization reform, the public shows a strong preference for phased decentralization based on regional capacity rather than full decentralization, with a score of 1.74. Overall, the public appears to favor public consensus and participation, and gradual reforms within existing systems, over radical reforms and government efficiency.

[Figure 12] Distribution of Public Policy Preferences (%) on <Governance and Administrative Reform> Issues

High Convergence of Policy Preferences Among Voters

Clear Differences in Stance Among Elites Regarding Decentralization Strategy and Criteria for High-Level Appointments

Comparing the policy preference landscape at the voter and political elite levels in [Figure 13], similar to most of the preceding agendas, voter-level analysis reveals a pronounced ideological convergence, while the political elite level shows evidence of conflict in policy preferences.

At the general public level, there is a high demand for governance based on cooperation rather than government-led efficiency in the policy-making process, evident among both progressive and conservative groups (conservatives 1.37, progressives 1.26). This indicates that policy implementation has become difficult without a communication process involving public consensus and participation. Meanwhile, preferences are converging towards a cautious approach in administrative reform and the promotion of decentralization. Regarding administrative district reorganization, both conservatives (1.39) and progressives (1.50) show a cautious attitude. In terms of decentralization strategy, conservatives (1.77) and progressives (1.69) are converging on a pragmatic approach that considers regional capacity rather than full decentralization. Conversely, while the general public emphasizes morality over expertise in high-level appointments, internal differences in stance are observed. Specifically, conservatives (1.52) emphasize expertise, while progressives (1.38) emphasize morality, showing a contrasting pattern.

At the elite level, while there is agreement with the general public's policy preferences on strengthening participatory governance (Grand National Party 1.42, Democratic Party 1.13), significant differences in policy preferences emerge on other issues. Firstly, while the general public was either negative towards administrative district reorganization or had divided opinions, elites from both parties showed a strong positive attitude towards reorganization (Grand National Party 1.53, Democratic Party 1.62). Furthermore, regarding the strategy for expanding decentralization, while the general public, both progressive and conservative, preferred a cautious approach, political elites exhibit a political divide on this issue (Grand National Party 1.79, Democratic Party 1.43). However, concerning high-level appointments, just as the evaluation criteria between morality and expertise differed based on ideological orientation among the general public, a similar difference is observed at the elite level: elites from the ruling Grand National Party emphasize expertise, while elites from the opposition Democratic Party emphasize morality.

[Figure 13] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscapes for <Social Openness> and <Political Order>: General Public vs. Political Elites (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

[Agenda 8] Political Reform: High Public Opinion for Constitutional Amendment, but Maintenance of Current Power Structure

Overall Ideological Preference Mood: Need for Constitutional Amendment, but Maintenance of Presidential System and Small Electoral Districts

Within the political sphere, voter preferences on the issue of <Political Reform>, one of the most significant concerns, vary by specific sub-issue. Regarding constitutional amendment, the most contentious issue, a majority favors amendment with a score of 1.59. However, on the issues of power structure and electoral district reform, public opinion strongly favors maintaining the existing system. Between a presidential system and a cabinet system, 1.39 indicates a preference for the presidential system. In relation to electoral district reform, 1.45 shows a somewhat strong preference for the current small electoral district system. However, regarding a shift from the current unitary system to a federal system with strengthened regional autonomy, 1.53 indicates a slight preference for federalization. Furthermore, concerning proportional representation, 1.64 suggests a preference for reducing rather than expanding it. This outcome can be attributed to the political sphere's failure to demonstrate the advantages of proportional representation to the public.

[Figure 14] Distribution of Public Policy Preferences (%) on <Political Reform> Issues

Voter Level: Convergence on Constitutional Amendment and Power Structure; Policy Divisions on Electoral Districts and Federalism

Elite Level: Unusually High Policy Convergence

Unlike other agendas, the <Political Reform> agenda exhibits a significantly high level of policy preference convergence among political elites. At the general public level, regarding the core issues of political reform such as constitutional amendment and power structure reorganization, there is a general acknowledgment of the need for constitutional amendment (conservatives 1.60, progressives 1.60), with convergence on preferring the basic framework of the current presidential system (conservatives 1.34, progressives 1.42). Recent surveys on proposed power structure reforms indicate that the preference for a four-year, two-term presidential system as an amendment reflects this public opinion. Regarding the issue of proportional representation, public opinion also converges towards reducing it (conservatives 1.68, progressives 1.58). However, concerning electoral districts, conservatives prefer the current small electoral district system (1.40), while progressives lean slightly towards a larger electoral district system (1.53).

Conversely, at the political elite level, policy preference convergence is evident across almost all aspects of electoral district systems. Regarding constitutional amendment, elites from the Grand National Party (1.87) and the Democratic Party (1.58) agree on its necessity, though with varying degrees of emphasis. On power structure, elites from both parties also prefer maintaining the current presidential system framework (Grand National Party 1.19, Democratic Party 1.37). Elite consensus also exists on maintaining the current unitary system framework over a federal system (Grand National Party 1.27, Democratic Party 1.44). Unlike the general public, political elites share a consensus on expanding proportional representation (Grand National Party 1.47, Democratic Party 1.26). However, regarding electoral district reform, while elites from the Grand National Party prefer the current small electoral district system (1.44), elites from the Democratic Party lean slightly towards a larger electoral district system (1.51), indicating a relatively balanced contest between the two positions. Nevertheless, the significant level of agreement between the two political elite groups on the direction of political reform is noteworthy.

[Figure 15] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscapes for <Political Reform>: General Public vs. Political Elites (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

4. Conclusion

The analysis above has compared the general policy preferences of voters across individual agendas, the differences in stances based on ideological orientation among voters, and the differences in stances between ruling and opposition political elites. The key characteristics observed are summarized as follows:

First, voter policy preferences (mood) lack ideological consistency and exhibit ideological polarization depending on the agenda. Specifically, within the same agenda, there are instances where progressive values and policies are preferred, while at other times, conservative values or policies are preferred. This indicates that in the upcoming presidential election, the ideological mood is unlikely to consistently lean in one direction, but rather will feature a coexistence of conflicting positions on different issues. Although progressive-friendly agendas such as employment and welfare have gained prominence since the economic crisis, the preference for a small government that trusts businesses and markets, and for selective/productive welfare over the large government and universal welfare advocated by progressives, is a point to watch in future policy competition between parties.

Second, the analysis of policy preferences by issue among progressive and conservative voters revealed that issues showing ideological convergence, transcending existing ideological divides, are more dominant than those exhibiting the traditional dichotomous ideological cleavage. While there are significant differences in policy preference distances between progressive and conservative groups, when policy preference positions are plotted on a 2x2 policy space in terms of direction, they often fall within the first and third quadrants, indicating convergence. Out of 34 policy issues in [Figure 16], 25 issues were located within the same space. Among these, there were relatively more issues converging in a conservative direction than in a progressive direction. Therefore, it is important to focus on the phenomenon of converging preferences in terms of direction, rather than perceiving the relationship between the two groups solely through the lens of ideological distance and adversarial conflict (Lee Na-young 2010; Jhee 2006).

Third, in contrast to the trend of ideological convergence in public opinion, at the political elite level, there is a balance between issues where policy preferences converge between ruling and opposition elites and issues where ideological divisions persist, with the Grand National Party aligning with conservative policies and the Democratic Party with progressive orientations. Out of 34 issues, including <Political Reform> and <Social Openness>, 19 issues are located in the policy convergence areas of the first quadrant (3 issues) and the third quadrant (16 issues). The majority being in the third quadrant indicates that the policy preferences of ruling and opposition political elites have largely converged towards a progressive stance, suggesting that the policy preferences of Grand National Party elites have shifted significantly to the left, contrary to common assumptions. Equally significant, 14 major issues out of the 34 are located in the fourth quadrant, where traditional ideological conflicts arise. This implies that at the political elite level, policy divisions and conflict factors based on the traditional ideological dichotomy are found in a considerable number of major issues. This suggests that policy competition among political elites does not adequately reflect the ideological convergence among general voters—the increase in conflicting stances that transcend existing ideological boundaries.

[Figure 16] Comparison of Policy Preference Landscapes for 34 Issue Areas: General Public vs. Political Elites (%)

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Through the dialectical political changes of ten years of the Grand National Party government (1988-1997), ten years of the Democratic Party government (1998-2007), and the current five years of the Grand National Party government since democratization, voters' 'blind support' based on partisanship towards specific ideologies, regions, or parties has weakened. This is judged to have led to an increase in unaffiliated voters, centrist voters, and swing voters, as well as a strengthening of check-and-balance voting in recent elections compared to regionalism, party voting, or ideological voting (Jeong Han-wool 2011).

Indeed, this survey demonstrated that in the policy domain, not just in the electoral domain, voters' policy preferences are transcending existing ideological boundaries, exhibiting conflicting choices where they simultaneously adopt conservative choices on certain issues and progressive choices on others, and showing a pronounced trend of ideological convergence. If political elites fail to accurately perceive these changes in voters and instead adhere to their policy positions within the existing dichotomous ideological framework, or engage in excessive leftward competition contrary to voter preferences, it will be difficult to gain the political support of pragmatic and flexible voters. Currently, both parties are actively engaged in adjusting their party identity and policy positions with an eye toward the next presidential election following the April 27th by-elections. Debates surrounding the ideological direction, such as leaning left or right, are intense both inside and outside the parties regarding the party's path forward. However, the analysis results of this study indicate the need for political elites to accurately understand the ideological flexibility and complexity of policy preferences, which vary depending on the agenda and issue (Jeong Han-wool 2011).■